lol its been reaffirmed that hawking pulled out for anti-israel reasons not for 'health' reasons or any other bs that the media tried to portray hence since theyve been on a barrage even in local newspapers here in canada and elsewhere in pro-zionist mainstream media targetting and attacking him.

The typical anti-semetism bullshit card is pulled when israel is criticized. Bunch of zio-trash

University of Cambridge is revealing the depth of the human idiocy trapped in absurd liberalism: Western women ‘discovering’ that their conversion to Islam ends in physical abuse and oppression! The Times has given a preamble to a new study on Islamic conversions. This should be an u-duh moment for all the liberals choosing to convert to the most violent, oppressive and evil cult on earth. These women have no excuses for their new-found discovery. And what is that discovery? That after converting to Islam, they are subject to abuse by their husbands that they don’t want to report! They also complain about oppression against women encouraged by mosques. Duh…!

Media is full of reports about Muslim conduct not only in their home countries, but around the world. Not a single Muslim society on the face of the earth have democracy, freedom or equality. Then, how utterly stupid can you be to convert to a faith that loves to abuse and rape women?

Sorry, but there is no pity from our side. Let these liberal learn reality the hard way. For years and years they have been screaming in defense of Islam, and now they learn that all that they heard from those they accused of bigotry was actually the truth and nothing but the truth.

The conversion to Islam in the UK where this study was made is actually tiny, with only 5,000 conversions per year of which nearly 80% leave Islam in less than three years. Media is blowing these small numbers out of proportion (mainly stemming from Muslim journalists and regurgitated endlessly) claiming that Islam is the ‘fastest’ growing religion. There are no conversion ceremonies in Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and therefore it is impossible to compare. The other faiths are free of choice and do not impose imprisoned regimes on their followers and cannot therefore be measured in the same respect. The growth to Islam in the UK is mainly by birth rate, by asylum, by general immigration, by illegal immigration, and by forced prison conversion, with a tiny number of 5,000 a year by voluntary conversion.

In Muslim countries minorities are converting by force to avoid death threats and execution. In contrast, the church has found that over 6 million Muslims PER YEAR convert to Christianity in Africa alone. The numbers are staggering in other parts of the Muslim world. We have number for other countries too and you’d be shocked at the numbers shared by the Church, but we do not wish to publish them because persecution of Muslims for apostasy are very high and relentless in these countries. To protect them we will keep the numbers secret.

Women who convert to Islam often find themselves at the “nexus of a clash of civilisations,” according to a new report. Converts become confused between what is faith and what is culture in their new Muslim community, with “dress etiquette” one of the first challenges.The issue of domestic violence was also a problem, with some converts finding it harder to escape an abusive husband because they were reluctant to admit to such problems after changing their faith.

The report, Narratives of Conversion to Islam, was based on the experience of 47 female converts to Islam and published by the Centre of Islamic Studies and the New Muslims Project.

It said that non-Muslims are often perplexed as to why a woman would choose to embrace “a backward faith that oppresses her”.According to some estimates, there could be as many as 100,000 converts to Islam in Britain. High-profile converts include Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth and the journalist Yvonne Ridley.

The study included women who converted to Islam from all faiths and none, including atheism, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.Family reactions were often negative, with one woman thrown out of the house by her father who accused her of joining a “barbaric and uncivilised” faith. Her brother went further and joined the British National Party “to prevent the further Islamification of Britain”. Neighbours were told the daughter had died.

Wearing a headscarf, hijab or even the full niqab dress was often seen as a “rite of passage” by converts and a way of “belonging” to their new community, but others chose not to wear any outward sign of their new faith for fear of attracting negative attention.For some, the headscarf changed their status in society from white to “non-white”, the report said.

One woman described converting to Islam at 16, leaving home because this upset her mother and then entering an arranged marriage with a man who became abusive.

When she sought help she was accused of bringing “dishonour” on her husband’s family. She escaped with her two children but they were then kidnapped and taken to India by her husband and she has not now seen them for nine years.

The women in the study also criticised the Sharia Councils and courts operating in Britain, fearing they placed their rights as women in jeopardy.

Overall, the convert experience was a mixture of acceptance and rejection, integration and isolation, the report said.It described a new British Islam emerging, particularly among children of converts, which is less reliant on the ethnic and cultural heritage of the early Muslim communities in the UK.

Harley Street physician Dr Annie Coxon, who converted to Islam from Catholicism 20 years ago and whose mother was American, said: “I have not had negative reactions to my change in religious faith from friends in the UK, but have had problems in the US with Homeland Security and with my brother and his wife, related to the perception of Islam as inevitably linked with terrorism.

“Converts are not accepted within the Pakistani Muslim community in the UK because of their negative impression of colonialism.”Yasir Suleiman, fonder of the Centre of Islamic Studies in Cambridge, said: “Conversion is a complex phenomenon. It is often full of joy and pain for the convert and her family and friends, regardless of the faith to which she converts, but no more so than when the faith is a maligned Islam and its followers.”

University of Cambridge is revealing the depth of the human idiocy trapped in absurd liberalism: Western women ‘discovering’ that their conversion to Islam ends in physical abuse and oppression! The Times has given a preamble to a new study on Islamic conversions. This should be an u-duh moment for all the liberals choosing to convert to the most violent, oppressive and evil cult on earth. These women have no excuses for their new-found discovery. And what is that discovery? That after converting to Islam, they are subject to abuse by their husbands that they don’t want to report! They also complain about oppression against women encouraged by mosques. Duh…!

Media is full of reports about Muslim conduct not only in their home countries, but around the world. Not a single Muslim society on the face of the earth have democracy, freedom or equality. Then, how utterly stupid can you be to convert to a faith that loves to abuse and rape women?

Sorry, but there is no pity from our side. Let these liberal learn reality the hard way. For years and years they have been screaming in defense of Islam, and now they learn that all that they heard from those they accused of bigotry was actually the truth and nothing but the truth.

The conversion to Islam in the UK where this study was made is actually tiny, with only 5,000 conversions per year of which nearly 80% leave Islam in less than three years. Media is blowing these small numbers out of proportion (mainly stemming from Muslim journalists and regurgitated endlessly) claiming that Islam is the ‘fastest’ growing religion. There are no conversion ceremonies in Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and therefore it is impossible to compare. The other faiths are free of choice and do not impose imprisoned regimes on their followers and cannot therefore be measured in the same respect. The growth to Islam in the UK is mainly by birth rate, by asylum, by general immigration, by illegal immigration, and by forced prison conversion, with a tiny number of 5,000 a year by voluntary conversion.

In Muslim countries minorities are converting by force to avoid death threats and execution. In contrast, the church has found that over 6 million Muslims PER YEAR convert to Christianity in Africa alone. The numbers are staggering in other parts of the Muslim world. We have number for other countries too and you’d be shocked at the numbers shared by the Church, but we do not wish to publish them because persecution of Muslims for apostasy are very high and relentless in these countries. To protect them we will keep the numbers secret.

Women who convert to Islam often find themselves at the “nexus of a clash of civilisations,” according to a new report. Converts become confused between what is faith and what is culture in their new Muslim community, with “dress etiquette” one of the first challenges.The issue of domestic violence was also a problem, with some converts finding it harder to escape an abusive husband because they were reluctant to admit to such problems after changing their faith.

The report, Narratives of Conversion to Islam, was based on the experience of 47 female converts to Islam and published by the Centre of Islamic Studies and the New Muslims Project.

It said that non-Muslims are often perplexed as to why a woman would choose to embrace “a backward faith that oppresses her”.According to some estimates, there could be as many as 100,000 converts to Islam in Britain. High-profile converts include Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth and the journalist Yvonne Ridley.

The study included women who converted to Islam from all faiths and none, including atheism, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.Family reactions were often negative, with one woman thrown out of the house by her father who accused her of joining a “barbaric and uncivilised” faith. Her brother went further and joined the British National Party “to prevent the further Islamification of Britain”. Neighbours were told the daughter had died.

Wearing a headscarf, hijab or even the full niqab dress was often seen as a “rite of passage” by converts and a way of “belonging” to their new community, but others chose not to wear any outward sign of their new faith for fear of attracting negative attention.For some, the headscarf changed their status in society from white to “non-white”, the report said.

One woman described converting to Islam at 16, leaving home because this upset her mother and then entering an arranged marriage with a man who became abusive.

When she sought help she was accused of bringing “dishonour” on her husband’s family. She escaped with her two children but they were then kidnapped and taken to India by her husband and she has not now seen them for nine years.

The women in the study also criticised the Sharia Councils and courts operating in Britain, fearing they placed their rights as women in jeopardy.

Overall, the convert experience was a mixture of acceptance and rejection, integration and isolation, the report said.It described a new British Islam emerging, particularly among children of converts, which is less reliant on the ethnic and cultural heritage of the early Muslim communities in the UK.

Harley Street physician Dr Annie Coxon, who converted to Islam from Catholicism 20 years ago and whose mother was American, said: “I have not had negative reactions to my change in religious faith from friends in the UK, but have had problems in the US with Homeland Security and with my brother and his wife, related to the perception of Islam as inevitably linked with terrorism.

“Converts are not accepted within the Pakistani Muslim community in the UK because of their negative impression of colonialism.”Yasir Suleiman, fonder of the Centre of Islamic Studies in Cambridge, said: “Conversion is a complex phenomenon. It is often full of joy and pain for the convert and her family and friends, regardless of the faith to which she converts, but no more so than when the faith is a maligned Islam and its followers.”

Who was the author of that article?

Looks like the author was a moderator of a forum. He couldn't even put his real name up. Author=moderator lol.

The man's body lies on a blanket striped in white and blue. He's wearing a dark brown tank top and a dark blue flowered sarong. Someone has tied his hands behind his back with rope. There are deep red gashes on his head and shoulders -- some of them presumably the wounds that ended his life.

The man in the photo is a Muslim. The people who killed him were almost certainly Buddhists. He was a victim in last fall's sectarian bloodshed in western Burma, which pitted members of the two religions against each other. The image comes from a new report by Human Rights Watch that carefully documents the violence that took some 200 lives and resulted in the forced displacement of some 125,000 people. (A more recent wave of violence within the past few weeks has taken some 40 additional lives and triggered another surge of refugees.) The report argues persuasively that state institutions, including the police, often stood by while Buddhist rioters went after their Muslim neighbors -- and in some cases may have even helped to organize the attacks. A mere 4 percent of Burma's population of Burma is Muslim, while well over 90 percent are Buddhists. Perhaps the fact that the government sided with the majority probably shouldn't have come as a surprise. (The allegations didn't stop the International Crisis Group, a leading western humanitarian organization, from giving an award to President Thein Sein earlier this week.)

But wait: Isn't Buddhism a religion that places respect for life and the embrace of peace at the very center of its worldview? The Buddha himself placed compassion at the root of his teachings, and in Burma itself, it was Buddhist monks who set the rigorously non-violent tone of the massive anti-government demonstrations back in 2007. The chants of the saffron-robed protestors were powerfully moving: "May all beings living to the East be free; all beings in the universe be free, free from fear, free from all distress!"

It turns out, sadly, that some Buddhist monks don't see this as a binding ethical imperative. Monks have been prominent among those inciting the recent bloodshed. The most notable is U Wirathu, a monk at a prominent monastery who's made a name for himself lately as an apologist for anti-Muslim sentiment and the organizer of the "969" movement, which has been issuing stickers and signs emblazoned with that number (which has symbolic significance for Burmese Buddhists) to identify businesses that refuse to serve Muslims -- exactly the kind of policy the monk is aiming to promote. He's said to have referred to himself as "the Buddhist Osama bin Laden." How can this sort of bigotry possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Enlightened One?

I'm happy to say that there are plenty of other Buddhist monks in Burma who have been pushing back against their chauvinist colleagues. But to understand what's been happening, we also need to take a closer look at those who claim to be standing up for Buddhism even as they've doing things that don't seem to be easily reconcilable with their religion.

First of all, the notion of Buddhism as an inherently pacifist religion has a strong element of Western oversimplification. Buddhist teaching has never prohibited believers from fighting in defense of a just cause. As the scholars Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer show in their book Buddhist Warfare, Buddhists have participated in wars ever since their faith came into being. Militant monks have fought for Chinese rulers (and against them) for centuries. Japan's samurai warriors were ardent Buddhists, men who cited the Buddha's teachings on the impermanence of physical existence as a good argument for soldiering.

When the Dalai Lama urges his fellow Tibetans to maintain non-violence in their struggle against Chinese rule, his fans in the West tend to see this as a typically Buddhist attitude. But, as some astute observers have pointed out, the Dalai Lama's embrace of civil disobedience may owe as much to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as it does to his fellow believers. (Nor, intriguingly, did it stop His Holiness from approving the killing of Osama bin Laden, though he later qualified his position when it became clear that the al Qaeda leader was unarmed when he was shot.) Indeed, his religious authority hasn't been enough to prevent over 100 Tibetans from killing themselves as a protest against Chinese policy despite his injunctions against suicide. (Happily, in the wake of the Human Rights Watch report, he has been urging the monks in Burma to end the violence there.)

But doctrine is only part of the problem. All religions -- Buddhism included -- tend to create a powerful sense of collective identity among their followers. All of the great world religions emphasize the sanctity of human life, and strive to limit the use of violence to what's admissible in certain cases. But those careful distinctions tend to go out the window when a group of believers feels that its values are under threat.

As the current crisis in Burma demonstrates, modern Buddhists are just as susceptible to identity politics as anyone else. In March, police in Sri Lanka stood by as Buddhist monks led a mob that pillaged a Muslim-owned garment warehouse. Sri Lanka, which has been convulsed for years by a civil war between majority Buddhists and minority Tamils, is home to several hard-line Buddhist political movements, including something called the "Buddhist Strength Force," which has recently made a name for itself with vitriolic anti-Muslim rhetoric. "It is the monks who protect our country, religion, and race," said Sri Lankan Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in a recent speech -- reinforcing suspicions that militant monks enjoy tacit government support.

The government in Thailand, meanwhile, has armed local Buddhist groups to counter a simmering Muslim insurgency in the south of the country. The militias, which are distinct from the regular army and the police, have the job of defending Buddhist communities against potential attacks -- and perhaps deepening the sectarian dimension in that long-running conflict.

What all three of these countries have in common is an ominous trend in which governments and religious institutions are lending support to destructive sectarian forces. Muslims may well bear some of the responsibility for the killings in Burma, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most of the violence was committed by far more numerous Buddhists who enjoyed crucial support from local officials and religious leaders.

None of this, of course, is to argue that Buddhists are uniquely evil. It's merely to point out that some of our idealized notions about the purity of Buddhism don't live up to real-world scrutiny. We shouldn't give Buddhist extremists a pass any more than we would their Muslim, Christian, or Jewish equivalents; otherwise we run the risk of becoming complicit in their crimes. Just because the conflicts they create are in far-away, exotic places is no excuse for complacency.

The man's body lies on a blanket striped in white and blue. He's wearing a dark brown tank top and a dark blue flowered sarong. Someone has tied his hands behind his back with rope. There are deep red gashes on his head and shoulders -- some of them presumably the wounds that ended his life.

The man in the photo is a Muslim. The people who killed him were almost certainly Buddhists. He was a victim in last fall's sectarian bloodshed in western Burma, which pitted members of the two religions against each other. The image comes from a new report by Human Rights Watch that carefully documents the violence that took some 200 lives and resulted in the forced displacement of some 125,000 people. (A more recent wave of violence within the past few weeks has taken some 40 additional lives and triggered another surge of refugees.) The report argues persuasively that state institutions, including the police, often stood by while Buddhist rioters went after their Muslim neighbors -- and in some cases may have even helped to organize the attacks. A mere 4 percent of Burma's population of Burma is Muslim, while well over 90 percent are Buddhists. Perhaps the fact that the government sided with the majority probably shouldn't have come as a surprise. (The allegations didn't stop the International Crisis Group, a leading western humanitarian organization, from giving an award to President Thein Sein earlier this week.)

But wait: Isn't Buddhism a religion that places respect for life and the embrace of peace at the very center of its worldview? The Buddha himself placed compassion at the root of his teachings, and in Burma itself, it was Buddhist monks who set the rigorously non-violent tone of the massive anti-government demonstrations back in 2007. The chants of the saffron-robed protestors were powerfully moving: "May all beings living to the East be free; all beings in the universe be free, free from fear, free from all distress!"

It turns out, sadly, that some Buddhist monks don't see this as a binding ethical imperative. Monks have been prominent among those inciting the recent bloodshed. The most notable is U Wirathu, a monk at a prominent monastery who's made a name for himself lately as an apologist for anti-Muslim sentiment and the organizer of the "969" movement, which has been issuing stickers and signs emblazoned with that number (which has symbolic significance for Burmese Buddhists) to identify businesses that refuse to serve Muslims -- exactly the kind of policy the monk is aiming to promote. He's said to have referred to himself as "the Buddhist Osama bin Laden." How can this sort of bigotry possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Enlightened One?

I'm happy to say that there are plenty of other Buddhist monks in Burma who have been pushing back against their chauvinist colleagues. But to understand what's been happening, we also need to take a closer look at those who claim to be standing up for Buddhism even as they've doing things that don't seem to be easily reconcilable with their religion.

First of all, the notion of Buddhism as an inherently pacifist religion has a strong element of Western oversimplification. Buddhist teaching has never prohibited believers from fighting in defense of a just cause. As the scholars Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer show in their book Buddhist Warfare, Buddhists have participated in wars ever since their faith came into being. Militant monks have fought for Chinese rulers (and against them) for centuries. Japan's samurai warriors were ardent Buddhists, men who cited the Buddha's teachings on the impermanence of physical existence as a good argument for soldiering.

When the Dalai Lama urges his fellow Tibetans to maintain non-violence in their struggle against Chinese rule, his fans in the West tend to see this as a typically Buddhist attitude. But, as some astute observers have pointed out, the Dalai Lama's embrace of civil disobedience may owe as much to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as it does to his fellow believers. (Nor, intriguingly, did it stop His Holiness from approving the killing of Osama bin Laden, though he later qualified his position when it became clear that the al Qaeda leader was unarmed when he was shot.) Indeed, his religious authority hasn't been enough to prevent over 100 Tibetans from killing themselves as a protest against Chinese policy despite his injunctions against suicide. (Happily, in the wake of the Human Rights Watch report, he has been urging the monks in Burma to end the violence there.)

But doctrine is only part of the problem. All religions -- Buddhism included -- tend to create a powerful sense of collective identity among their followers. All of the great world religions emphasize the sanctity of human life, and strive to limit the use of violence to what's admissible in certain cases. But those careful distinctions tend to go out the window when a group of believers feels that its values are under threat.

As the current crisis in Burma demonstrates, modern Buddhists are just as susceptible to identity politics as anyone else. In March, police in Sri Lanka stood by as Buddhist monks led a mob that pillaged a Muslim-owned garment warehouse. Sri Lanka, which has been convulsed for years by a civil war between majority Buddhists and minority Tamils, is home to several hard-line Buddhist political movements, including something called the "Buddhist Strength Force," which has recently made a name for itself with vitriolic anti-Muslim rhetoric. "It is the monks who protect our country, religion, and race," said Sri Lankan Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in a recent speech -- reinforcing suspicions that militant monks enjoy tacit government support.

The government in Thailand, meanwhile, has armed local Buddhist groups to counter a simmering Muslim insurgency in the south of the country. The militias, which are distinct from the regular army and the police, have the job of defending Buddhist communities against potential attacks -- and perhaps deepening the sectarian dimension in that long-running conflict.

What all three of these countries have in common is an ominous trend in which governments and religious institutions are lending support to destructive sectarian forces. Muslims may well bear some of the responsibility for the killings in Burma, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most of the violence was committed by far more numerous Buddhists who enjoyed crucial support from local officials and religious leaders.

None of this, of course, is to argue that Buddhists are uniquely evil. It's merely to point out that some of our idealized notions about the purity of Buddhism don't live up to real-world scrutiny. We shouldn't give Buddhist extremists a pass any more than we would their Muslim, Christian, or Jewish equivalents; otherwise we run the risk of becoming complicit in their crimes. Just because the conflicts they create are in far-away, exotic places is no excuse for complacency.

The world is too small for that.

The Buddha never ruled out murder all together, if by killing someone who would bring untold suffering unto others, by killing them you produce less death of innocent others, then this is a justifiable death. Actually it is the most buddhist act of all to eradicate Islam, as it is this ideology that causes untold suffering and death to innocent people unnecessarily, because Islam rejects peace and embraces violence, it could rightly be considered the duty of all Buddhists, in the name of preventing the suffering of innocents, to eradicate Islam anywhere it resides. Islam is anti life, anti peace, it is the duty of good men everywhere to oppose it.

The Vatican has clarified that atheists will still go to hell if they reject God, after Pope Francis broke with tradition to deliver a homily stating non-believers who do good will be redeemed through Jesus.

The Pope's words made headlines around the world after he gave an unprepared speech in which he emphasised the importance of “doing good” as a principle which unites all humanity.

After international media attention, the Vatican attempted clarify how exactly one gets in to heaven, with Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, saying that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

That is, atheists are still going to hell.

However there was still hope for the sinful among us, as “every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin.”

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know anything about shit?"

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know anything about shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book......

A Muslim was seated next to a little girl on an air-plane, the Muslim thought to himself what a wonderful wife this young girl would make if only he wasn't about to hijack the plane and kill everyone on board.

This fat disgusting Pig gets paid £214,000 a year from the Government to make up lies about anti-muslim sentiment. Do these terrorist sympathisers think that by deliberately deceiving the public that they will inspires sympathy for their cause. Muslims complain they are unfairly targeted,and yet like I have always said, through their lies, their deliberate deceit, their terrorism, and their perverse immorality they are despised for very good reasons.

The truth about the 'wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder

Fiyaz Mughal runs a project called Tell Mama, which receives £214,000 a year from the Government to monitor anti-Muslim attacks in Britain. In the wake of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder, he has been understandably busy.

There has, said Mr Mughal, been “a wave of attacks, harassment, and hate-filled speech against Muslims … an unprecedented number of incidents”, including “a rise in street harassment of Muslims – unprovoked, opportunistic attacks from strangers as Muslims go about their lives”.

He added: “Over the past week or so, these sorts of hate crimes have noticeably increased in number and, in many instances, become more extreme.

"The scale of the backlash is astounding … there has been a massive spike in anti-Muslim prejudice. A sense of endemic fear has gripped Muslim communities.”

The media, especially the BBC, have accepted the claims without question. A presenter on Radio 4’s influential Today programme stated that attacks on Muslims were now “on a very serious scale”.

Talk of a “massive anti-Muslim backlash” has become routine. And it is that figure issued by Tell Mama – of, to date, 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” since the Woolwich murder – which has formed the basis of nearly all this reporting.

Mr Mughal is in no doubt what lies behind it all. As he told a newspaper: “I do not see an end to this cycle of violence. There is an underlying Islamophobia in our society and the horrendous events in Woolwich have brought this to the fore.”

And as he put it on Today, “the [Government’s] Prevent [anti-extremism] agenda, the extremist agenda, have not been good for building confidence – the sense of fear just alienates and isolates communities.”

Yet the unending “cycle of violence” against Muslims, the unprecedented “wave of attacks” against them from strangers in the street, the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” – all turn out to be yet more things we thought we knew about Woolwich that are not really supported by the evidence.

Tell Mama confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that about 120 of its 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” – 57 per cent – took place only online. They were offensive postings on Twitter or Facebook, or comments on blogs: nasty and undesirable, certainly, but some way from violence or physical harm and often, indeed, legal. Not all the offending tweets and postings, it turns out, even originated in Britain.

Tell Mama has no written definition of what it classes as an anti-Muslim incident, but has in the past adopted a wide definition. Last November, the cross-bench Asian peer, Baroness Flather, told a newspaper it was “pointless for the Conservatives to chase Muslim votes.They are all on benefits and all vote Labour”. Tell Mama added this admittedly crass and untrue remark to its database as an “anti-Muslim incident,” though it said it had deleted it following an explanation from Lady Flather.

Although the service says its caseworkers “carefully handle each report as it comes in, to determine whether it can be verified and justified as an anti-Muslim incident”, Mr Mughal admitted that a further 35 of the 212 post-Woolwich incidents, or 16 per cent, had yet to be verified.He justified publishing the figure, however, saying he expected that all but a handful of incidents would be verified.

Fewer than one in 12 of the 212 “incidents” reported to Tell Mama since Woolwich – 17 cases (8 per cent) – involved individuals being physically targeted.Six people had things thrown at them, said Mr Mughal, and most of the other 11 cases were attempts to pull off the hijab or other items of Islamic dress.Without in any way denying the distress and harm caused by such attacks, they do stand at the lower levels of seriousness.

Seventeen is still likely, of course, to underestimate the total number of attacks. The Metropolitan Police, the only major force in Britain which breaks down “offences with an Islamophobic flag”, said there were 13 allegations of common or racially aggravated assault of Muslims reported to it in London in the week after the killing.

About 40 per cent of Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims live in the capital, so the national figure could be around 32 cases, or about one Muslim in every 100,000.Offences of common and racially aggravated assault are typically used where there has been no injury, such as hijab snatching, or minor injury not drawing blood or requiring medical treatment, such as the throwing incidents reported by Tell Mama. The Met said there were no cases reported to it where any more serious injury resulted.

Asking other police forces and trawling local media reports, The Telegraph has been unable to find a single confirmed case since Drummer Rigby’s death where any individual Muslim has received an injury requiring medical treatment.

Tell Mama’s Twitter feed reported one such incident, of a Muslim woman “knocked unconscious” in Bolton, but the local police said they had no knowledge of this and did not believe it happened.

It is unlikely, though not impossible, that any case of serious injury could have escaped the notice of the media or police.

Perhaps the most serious manifestation of anti-Muslim feeling after the killing was a number of attacks on mosques. These are believed to total 11, though here again evidence for a “wave of violence” is lacking.

With only two exceptions, a mosque in Grimsby into which firebombs were thrown and another one in Essex where a man entered with a knife, all the incidents were relatively minor, such as window-breaking or graffiti.

According to the Charity Commission, there are between 1,100 and 1,500 mosques in the UK, so the number attacked is less than 1 per cent.Two other sets of figures are available. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), forces nationally reported 71 anti-Muslim hate crimes or “incidents of note” to the National Community Tensions Team in the week after the murder of Drummer Rigby.“That would cover everything they feel has a link to Woolwich, though an incident of note would not necessarily be a crime,” said a spokesman.The second set of figures is from True Vision, an online hate-crime reporting tool operated by Acpo. There were 136 reports of anti-Muslim activity – internet or physical – received via this website in the week after Woolwich, overwhelmingly in the first few days, though Acpo said that not all were crimes and some reports were duplicates.

As for the claim that there is “no end” to the cycle of anti-Muslim activity, it has substantially ended already. According to police, there was a sharp spike in reported incidents in the day or so after the killing, but they have already subsided to pre-Woolwich levels. Acpo said that by last Wednesday, a week after the murder, the number of incidents reported to True Vision had fallen back to four a day.

The claim that the spike and numbers were “unprecedented” is wrong, too. After the 7/7 attacks in London – admittedly more serious than the killing of Drummer Rigby – there was a far bigger and more prolonged rise in faith-hate crimes. According to the Met, 269 were recorded in London alone in the three weeks after the 2005 attacks, compared with 40 for the same period the year before.

What the data broadly show, in short, is that Drummer Rigby’s killers have failed. The breakdown in community relations has not come. There has been a rise in incidents, but it appears to be very short-term, overwhelmingly non-violent and even then almost entirely at the lower end of the scale.

Yet this is not a message the Islamophobia industry wants heard, now or ever. Two months before the Woolwich killing, Tell Mama was already claiming that anti-Muslim incidents were “rising”, on the basis of reports made to its service. But at that point it had only been going for a year, so it had no previous figures to compare.

In 2010 a report for the Islamist Cordoba Foundation, described by David Cameron as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”, said there was already what it called a wave of “terrorism” against British Muslims, with an “alarming rise” in hatred of Islam.

What evidence there is simply does not support the claims. There is anti-Muslim hatred in Britain, and it is disgraceful. But nearly all the evidence shows it is diminishing. In 2009 there were 368 anti-Muslim crimes in London; in 2012, there were 337. In the first 11 weeks of 2013, there were 64 crimes, equating at that point to 303 across the year, though the Woolwich attack will drive that up.

Hate crime in London’s main Muslim area, Tower Hamlets, has dropped by almost half since 2003 (though it rose slightly this year). Outside London, faith-hate crimes reported to the main forces with big Muslim populations – West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire – have fallen, too.Broader political developments suggest a country increasingly at ease with Muslims. In 2009 the main anti-Islamic party, the BNP, had 55 councillors. Now it has two. The number of Muslim MPs doubled at the last election, some elected for entirely non-Muslim seats such as Bromsgrove, Gillingham, or Stratford-upon-Avon with no backlash whatever.

Continental campaigns to ban minarets and the niqab have gained absolutely no political traction in Britain.Opinion polls after the Woolwich attack showed rising positive sentiment about Muslims – though, as with so many of these exercises, the answers can depend on the questions you ask.

Yet broader politics are also driving the Islamophobia industry.

For Islamists such as the Cordoba Foundation, the narrative of British Muslims under attack, increasingly hated and feared by their fellow citizens, is essential for recruitment, and for furthering their central lie that different races and faiths cannot coexist.“Islamophobic” is also a handy charge to throw at anyone who questions Islamist ideology.

Tell Mama is not Islamist, though Mr Mughal has written in the Cordoba Foundation’s journal (he says it was a “mistake” which he will not repeat).

But part of its motivation appears to be an attempt to draw some of the sting from Islamist terrorism by equating it with the work of anti-Muslim extremist groups such as the English Defence League.As Tell Mama’s Twitter feed puts it, “whilst we need to tackle the narrative of hate inspired by al-Qaeda, we also need to tackle the thuggery and hate of the EDL”. Mr Mughal insists that “both groups are significantly problematic”.Loathsome as the white extreme Right is, however, there is clearly no comparison. No one in Britain has been killed by the EDL; 53 people have been killed by Islamist terrorists. White racists, unlike their Islamist equivalents, do not control key religious institutions or have a significant presence in British universities.

Over the past decade, half a dozen or so white British Right-wingers have been convicted of possessing explosives and other weapons. But all were loners not acting in concert with any group.

In contrast, there have, over the same period, been 150 convictions for Islamist-related terrorism in the UK, many relating to serious, carefully organised, often multinational plots against specific targets involving substantial numbers of people.For some quarters of the Islamophobia industry, it has now become Muslims who are the main victims of the Woolwich horror.But while some innocent Muslims have of course become victims, the main victim was Drummer Lee Rigby. And in overhyping the backlash, some in the Muslim community are playing right into the hands of his killers.

This story is the perfect example of how Muslims manipulate bleeding heart left wingers. They provoke a serious response and then cry they are the victims. The focus on this story is how the poor Muslims are being targeted by the crazy angry buddhists. If you were only scouring the headlines or skimming the article you would come away thinking those poor Muslims. Always being bullied. But what started the riots, what could enrage them to the point of such aggressive actions. It all started after a Muslim man splashed gasoline on a Buddhist woman and set her on fire. And yet they mention nothing about the victim of such a brutal act of terror other than to say that's what started the riots. When the REAL victims are ignored (The Buddhist woman and her community) and the perpetrators are protected, then it is only a matter of time before people take matters into there own hands.

Now people can discount these acts of terrorism all they like, and suggest that burning a woman to death isn't a just cause to attack the community that produced the terrorist. But what do these liberal bleeding hearts expect to do about it, are they going to let Islamic inspired terrorism to just become an accepted way of life for the citizens of the world. Do we just have to accept that Muslim terror is a price we all have to pay? It reminds me of my naive Mothers advice when being bullied by the school bully, which was to "Just ignore them". Yeah, thanks Mum, that's a great way to get the shit kicked out of you!

LASHIO, Myanmar — More than 1,000 Muslims who fled Myanmar’s latest bout of sectarian violence huddled Thursday in a Buddhist monastery guarded by army soldiers as calm returned to this northeastern city, though burnt out buildings leveled by Buddhist rioters still smoldered.

The army transported terrified Muslim families by the truckload out of a neighborhood in Lashio where overturned cars and motorcycles that had been charred a day earlier left black scars on the red earth.

“We heard things could get worse, so we waved down soldiers and asked them for help,” said 59-year-old Khin Than, who arrived at the monastery Thursday morning with her four children and sacks of luggage along with several hundred other Muslims. “We left because we’re afraid of being attacked.”

The violence in Lashio this week highlights how anti-Muslim unrest has slowly spread across Myanmar since starting last year in western Rakhine state and hitting the central city of Meikhtila in March. President Thein Sein’s government, which inherited power from the military two years ago, has been heavily criticized for failing to contain the violence.

In Lashio on Thursday, Buddhist monks organized meals for the newly arrived refugees, who huddled together in several buildings in the monastery compound.

Although a few Buddhist men could still be seen Thursday riding motorbikes with crude weapons such as sharpened bamboo poles, no new violence was reported. Several banks and shops reopened as residents emerged to look at destroyed Muslim shops. Trucks of soldiers and police crisscrossed main roads. They guarded the ruins of Muslim businesses that were reduced to ashes on Tuesday and Wednesday, erecting roadblocks from twisted debris.

At one corner, where the charred remains of a three-story building still smoldered, Muslim residents sorted through rubble for anything salvageable. One family packed electronics from their shop into the back of a truck.

A woman who had fled a mob a day earlier was still in a state of shock.

“These things should not happen,” said the woman, Aye Tin, a Muslim resident who slept overnight in a local Red Cross compound. “Most Muslims are staying off the streets. They’re afraid they’ll be attacked or killed if they go outside.”

The rioting began Tuesday after a Muslim man splashed gasoline on a Buddhist woman and set her on fire. Buddhist mobs responded by burning down several Muslim-owned shops, a mosque and an Islamic orphanage. Roving motorcyclists continued the violence on Wednesday, leaving one person dead and four injured.

Presidential spokesman Ye Htut said 25 people had been detained so far. He said all those arrested were from Lashio.

The violence is casting fresh doubt over whether Thein Sein’s government can or will act to contain the racial and religious intolerance plaguing a deeply fractured nation still struggling to emerge from half a century of military rule. Muslims, who account for about 4 percent of Myanmar’s roughly 60 million people, have been the main victims of the violence since it began last year, but so far most criminal trials have involved prosecutions of Muslims, not members of the Buddhist majority.

The nation's first atheist monument to be erected on public land will be unveiled next month in staunchly Christian north Florida.

The monument -- a granite bench, engraved with secularist quotes -- will be placed outside the Bradford County Courthouse in Starke, Fla., next month. The bench will stand in contrast to a display of the Ten Commandments put up last year on the same patch of land, Time reports.

“We’d rather there be no monuments at all, but if they are allowed to have the Ten Commandments, we will have our own,” said monument designer Ken Loukinen, the director of regional operations for American Atheists.

Last year, Bradford County established a “Free Speech Forum” outside the courthouse, which permitted private groups to erect monuments at their own expense. Following the ruling, the Community Men’s Fellowship, a local Christian group, placed a 5-foot, 6-ton slab engraved with the Bible’s Ten Commandments outside of the courthouse.

American Atheists took the county to court, arguing that the Ten Commandments statue violated the separation of church and state.

It was ultimately decided that the Ten Commandments slab would stay while the atheists would be allowed to put up their own monument. The ruling paved the way for the 1,500-pound granite bench, engraved with quotes from prominent secular thinkers including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, to be built.

The monument will also include a quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, a 1796 pact between the U.S. and North African Muslims. The treaty is a seminal document for atheists because of its declaration that “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” reports The Huffington Post.

“We have maintained from the beginning that the Ten Commandments doesn’t belong on government property,” American Atheists President David Silverman said in a press release. “There is no secular purpose for the monument whatsoever and it makes atheists feel like second-class citizens. But if keeping it there means we have the right to install our own monument, then installing our own is exactly what we’ll do.”

The atheists' monument will also feature Biblical quotes listing harsh punishments for breaking the Ten Commandments. The inclusion is designed “to make it clear that the Ten Commandments are not the ‘great moral code’ they’re often portrayed to be,” Dave Muscato, American Atheists public relations director, said.

Ken Weaver of the Community Men’s Fellowship told the Christian Post that though his group fundamentally disagrees with the atheists' stance on religion, it supports their right to express their beliefs freely.

Ken Weaver of the Community Men’s Fellowship told the Christian Post that though his group fundamentally disagrees with the atheists' stance on religion, it supports their right to express their beliefs freely.

Judging Mr. Weaver from this one statement alone, I am forced to wonder, why can't more people be like that?